Inscriptions in the Phœnician character, now deposited in the British Museum, discovered on the site of Carthage, during researches made by Nathan Davis, esq; at the expense of Her Majesty's government, in the years 1856, 1857, and 1858

V

FRO M

CARTHAGE

INSCRIPTIONS

IN THE PHOENICIAN CHARACTER,

NOW DEPOSITED IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM,

DISCOVEKED ON THE SITE

CARTHAGE,

DURING RESEARCHES

MADE BT

NATHAN DAVIS, ES Q„

AT THE EXPENSE OF HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT, IN THE YEARS 1856,

1857, AND 1858.

PRINTED BY ORDER OF THE TRUSTEES.

1868.

PREFACE

The Phoenician Inscriptions contained in the following volume were discovered during researches made by Mr. Nathan Davis in the years 1856, 1857, and 1858, on the site
of ancient Carthage, at the expense of Her Majesty’s Government. Mr. Davis had been resident for many years previously in the Pashalic of Tunis, was personally on terms
of intimate friendship with the Pasha, and had a thorough acquaintance with the spoken language (Arabic) of the natives.

It appears that Mr. Davis made excavations, with more or less success, at some twenty different places, either on the presumed site of ancient Carthage, or in its immediate
neighbourhood ; and that the majority of the Inscriptions were found between the hill of St. Louis and the sea, not far from a ravine which divides that hill from a neighbouring
eminence on which it has been supposed by many that the temple of Juno was placed. The Inscriptions thus discovered are 90 in number, and have been lithographed on 32
Plates. Besides these, a small number were obtained, which, in accordance with the practice of Continental scholars, may be termed Late-Phcenician. These are, for
the most part, written in a character which is exceedingly degraded, and are often almost illegible. Some of these Late-Phcenician Inscriptions were purchased at different
times by Mr. Davis, and are believed to have been originally discovered by M. Honegger, a German architect, formerly in the service of the Pasha of Tunis, who conducted
several excavations for Sir Thomas Reade, late Her Majesty’s Consul at Tunis. It is proposed, at. some future time, to publish the Late-Phcenician Inscriptions in a
supplementary volume.

The material of the tablets on which these Inscriptions occur, is either a compact limestone, or a fine sandstone. To this statement, however, there is one exception,
No. 71 : this is in white marble, and differs from the other tablets in its form, which is that of a quadrangular tile, with the Inscription carved along two of its edges.

Generally, the front and back of these tablets are parallel, and the upper part terminates either in an acute angle, or in a pedimental form, with elevations at the corners
like acrotena. There are, however, three exceptions, the marble tablet, No. 71, just noticed, No. 73, which is a cylindrical shaft of stone 18 inches high, with small niches carved
upon it at intervals, and No. 90, which, though much shattered, exhibits the remains of a bevelled architectural ornamentation at its upper end.

The front is worked to a smooth surface, and the Inscription is engraved on it by a sharp tool : the backs and sides are only hammer-dressed. It may be doubted whether
any of the tablets are perfect, in their present state, many of them having lost the upper end, while nearly all of them were originally longer at the lower end.

They generally vary from 5 to 12| inches in height ; from 4 to 7 inches in width, and from 1| to 4 inches in thickness.

With regard to the subject-matter of these Inscriptions, it may be stated that, with two exceptions, Nos. 71 and 90, they appear to be votive tablets, and not of tombstones.

With respect to the period of their execution it is difficult to speak with precision; but as we have no reason for doubting that they are all purely Carthaginian, they
must have been engraved either before the overthrow of that city, which is the most probable opinion, or be the work of some of the native inhabitants who may have
lingered amono- its ruins. It will be observed that there are many discrepancies in the style of their engraving, naturally suggesting considerable differences in their date ; and
that the character of the writing of Nos. 71 and 90 does not materially differ from that of the celebrated Inscription at Marseilles, which is unquestionably of the best Phoenician
times: indeed those which exhibit the greatest rudeness in their execution, do not show any approach to the Late-Phcenician type. It will be further perceived that the names
occurring in these tablets are, in almost all cases, purely Phoenician, while their forms and ornamentation connect them more nearly with late Greek than with Roman
art. Thus, for example, the fleurons or honeysuckle ornaments on the upper portions of these tablets resemble those on the Greek \ ases of the 2nd or 3rd Century, b.c., but
do not betray any Roman influence.

With reference to the value of this collection of Phoenician Inscriptions, it should be remembered that, up to the time of Mr. Davis’s commencing his excavations, there
were scarcely twenty Inscriptions unquestionably Carthaginian in the various museums of Europe ; and that there have been, from time to time, considerable differences of
opinion between distinguished scholars, owing to the uncertainty existing as to the form of particular letters of the Phoenician alphabet. The discovery, therefore, of this large
number of inscriptions has afforded means for a complete collation and determination of all the Phoenician characters in use along the northern shores of Africa, and has thus
set at rest any doubts as to the true value of the ordinary Phoenician letters. In fact, the present publication will form a standard of reference for the determination of any
Inscriptions that may hereafter be discovered.

There has been some doubt with regard to the best rendering of a formula of frequent occurrence, termed, for want of a better title, the benedictory formula.

4

The formula written at length, is generally (with slight variations)

iO-Dfi

or, more

briefly-

vbp yom.

Gesenius has translated It, “Ubi audlverit vocem eorum benedlcat eis," in the case of a Maltese Inscription, where there are two. votaries ; M. de Saulcy, “ Lots qu’ll a entendu
leurs voix il les a benis M.

Judas, “ Ex praeeepto maledixcrnnt ant benedixernnt.” In the following work the translation of Gesenius has been followed, as the one which,
on the whole, appeared the most clear.

The divinities to whom these tablets are addressed are invariably Tanith-Pen-BaM and Baal-Hamman, both of whom we know to have been Deities worshipped
at Carthage.

The former is shown by means of a bilingual Inscription, found at Athens (and formerly in the Museum of the United Service Institution, but now in the British Museum)
to be identical with the Oriental Artemis, or Diana, who was called, as we learn from Plutarch (Artax c. 27) and other ancient writers, Anaitis, or Tanais. Only one instance
occurs in these Inscriptions of a name compounded with Tanith— via, Abd-Tanith— Inscr. 62. The latter Divinity is doubtless the Belsamen mentioned in the Poenulus of

Plautus, and may be the Jupiter Ammon whose worship prevailed so extensively in Africa.

The names of the dedicators, in most cases, are of Semitic origin, and compounded of the names of various deities and of words denoting dependence or
respect. Thus we find a series of names connected with Melkart, the Tyrian Hercules, such as Abd-Melkart, Bad-Melkart, Amt-Melkart, and Melkart-Halats ; and with
Astareth, as Amt-Astarcth, Bad-Astareth, Ger-Astareth, & c. The names of Asman, the Phoenician jEsculapius, and Baal are also constantly found in composition, as, lor
example, Abd-Asman, Bad-Asman, Asman-Shamar, See., and Baftl-Hanna, Han-Bak], Mahar-Baal, Azer-Baal, See. Other not uncommon names are those of Magon, Hanna,
Abda, Acbar, Stc. A complete list of all these names is given below, with a reference to the Inscriptions on which they occur.

It may be further remarked, that many of the names found in these Inscriptions are familiar to us from Carthaginian history, such as Han-Baal (Hannibal), Bad-Melkart
(Bomilcar), Hamelcar, Stc. There is, however, no ground for assuming, as Mr. Davis has done in his “ Carthage and its Remains,” that these names actually belong to the
historical personages ; though it is possible that they may, in some instances, refer to members of the same family.

Lastly, it may be stated, that, as the chief object of the present publication has been to lay before scholars the lithographic copies and corresponding Hebrew transcript
and Latin translation of the Inscriptions discovered by Mr. Davis, it has not been thought advisable to make such restorations of the text, where either wholly lost or only in
part preserved, as would have required notes of more than ordinary length, if not special dissertations, for their confirmation. Both the Hebrew transcript and the Latin
translation follow the original as nearly as possible; and the few subjoined notes contain only such explanations as were deemed absolutely necessary.

In conclusion I wish to state that I am indebted to A. W. Franks, Esq. and Emanuel Deulsch, Esq., of the British Museum, for much assistance rendered to me during
the deciphering and translating of these Inscriptions, and to record my best thanks to Professor Levy, oi Breslau, for many valuable suggestions.

IV. S. W. VAUX.

British Museum, March, 1803.

PLATE I.

No. 1. '

[i]inVi ^033 ronf1? nm1?]
ntt vra wt* inn [tya1?]
. . in p ‘vany p

[Dominie] Tanith faciei-Baal,(1)et domino [Baal]-
Hamman13: {Sacrificium9r) quod vovit Adb(4> . .

filius Azer-Baal(5> filii Han . .

(1) We have represented the y throughout these inscrip¬
tions by a.

(2) Following the most common transcription of the n
in such names as Hannibal, Hamilcar, &c., we have not
thought it advisable to render this letter by Kh, Hh, or Ch,
as has been sometimes done.

(3) There has been some doubt among Phcenician scholars
as to the best mode of translating the usual formula TT3
Thus, Gesenius reads “virvovens" (Melit.i.p 90); Bourgade,
“ ex voto obtulit ” (Cartliag. A. p. 5), and, where there is a repe¬
tition, as 113 t£W 113, simply “vovens;” Judas reads “ autel,
monument votif,” p. 04, or, “basis sepulturas,” pp. 71, 72,
&c. ; Barges, “ votum arm vovit,” p. 3 ; and De Saulcy,
“ (ceci est) ce qu’a consacre ” (Ann. de l’Institut. Arch. xvii.
p. 70, 1845, and xix. p. 194, 1847). We would rather
presume that, in all cases, the tablet bearing this inscription
has been, originally, in close connection with the offering
itself. An implied Sacri/icium would then form the subject
of the whole sentence.

(4) In the second line it is probable that owing to the
similarity of the letters 1 (D) and 31 (B) in Phcenician, 311ft
lias been cut by mistake for 131ft, which is, itself, more
usually spelt liy. As there is room for at least three
more letters, the name might be completed from other in¬
scriptions, IPti 131ft (Abd-Aser), a name of not unfrequent
occurrence. Cf. Gesen. Melit. i. 2. Cit. 2. i.

(5) This is the original form of the well-known name
Asd rubai (not Hasdrubal) Cf. Hebr. PfOty, ‘wity,
iTlty, lil'liy. The 1 is rendered throughout by Z, agree¬
ably with the English pronunciation.

No. 2,

ft1?! I?y33y3 J1 3/11? mib
ft ii3 i£»ft pn bya1? p
. . ri3 mpPana

Dominie Tanith faciei-a>Baal et domino Baal-
Hannnan: quod vovit<5) Amt-Melkart® filia . .

(1) 1J13 for the more usual 13.

(2) The space left between the 1 of 113, and the ft of
mpPrOft seems to have been originally intended for the
ft which would form the feminine termination to agree
with nn.

(3) Amt-Melkart, servant of Melkart— a female name,
like Amt-Astareth, which latter answers to the male Abd-
Astaretli. Melkart is the Phcenician form of the Greek
Mi*ixapfloc, according to Philo Byblius, the Hercules of the
Phcenicians : Hesychius has, also, Mf^ixapSoc ° *«1 HpaxXic.
According to the first Maltese Inscription (Gesen. p. 00)
be was the Baal' or chief god of Tyre, IS *?y3 JVtpba.
The name is derived from Jllp “Rex urbis" — and
enters rather largely into the composition of other Phcenician
names, such as Hamelcar, Bomelcar.

No. 3.

[I?y]3i33 ron1? n3i[i1?]

[n]n byib d»[^i]

13 tOll 113 !£tf* i
13 mpbmny
mynwym

Domina; Tanitli faciei-Baal, et domino Baal-
Hamman : quod vovit Hanna, filius Abd-Mellcart,
filii Bad-Astareth.a>

(1) Astnretli is written here with the second y
(myrrzym) (Bad-Astareth), which is not usual. The
more common form Bad-Astareth occurs in Classical authors
under the contracted forms, Bodostor and Bostor. Thus
Bodostor (BoSoirTKp) is found in Diodorus (v. Mai, Nov.
Collect, ii. 53) ; and Bostor (Bueiuf), as Prmfect of Saguntum,
in Polyb. iii. 38, Liv. xxii. 22. BostaruB (Basrapos) is also
mentioned as the general of the Carthaginians against
Regulus (Polyb. i. 30). Cf. BctSl^fcc, king of the Tyrians
(Jos. c. Apion i. 18), and Bx&foc (Syncell. p. 345. ed.
Dindorf), both of which are probably derived from the
same original.

'

.

PLATE III.

No. 7.

No. 8.

33 run1? roib

31? vmbi

13 ^on by

1013 P 333 1

333 n3nl? n3il?
n byib pabi by

ItfJTDN 1013 WN ID

rm3,p n3 mn

Dominte Tanith faciei-BaAl et Domino01 Baal-
Hamman : quod vovit Nabag,® filius Pars.

Domime Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamman : quod0> vovit Am -(2>Astareth, filia
Abragak.(3>

(1) The form of the N is that of the latest inscriptions,
and the 1 very much resembles the 3.

(2) 333 and KH3 are new Phoenician names ; the latter,
ttH3, may be either the Hebrew word for “ rider,” or may
have some reference to Persia, the name of which country,
however, in the Bible, is spelt, DriB, with a D.

(1) The form Mn3, instead of the usual TT3, is used in
connection with the feminine n3. Cf. ante, Iuscr. 2.

(2) This name is found on the Sidonian Inscript. (1. 14),
as that of the mother of Asman-Azer, the king of Sidon.

(3) H313P is a new name, possibly that of some African
personage. The unusually large space left vacant on this
tablet renders it likely that the inscription has not been
completed : in this case, the first part of the last word might
be connected with the root 13P-

British museum. I'hceniciast inscriptions. pl.iv.

PLATE IV.

No. 10.
n:sib na-i*?
im1?! bpais
[i»]n inn Ijjp1? i
[njnpbma ytj

P UI’VjP P

a:n

Dominse Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamman : quod vovit Bad-Melkart, filius Baal-
Itan,rt) filii Hanna.

(1) We find tliis compound reversed, thus : I tun- Baal.
infra, Inscr. 63.

No. 11.

^jpp ronb /PI*?
ion ‘yol? pn^i
p Njn -rn CN '
^jp p ‘wnuri

p jp'pon p

Dominte Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamman: quod vovit Hanna, filius Han-Baal,(1) 2
filii Baal-Malak, filii Hamelcat,® filii.

( 1) Though this is the same name as that of the celebrated
Carthaginian general, there is no reason to suppose that that
personage is here referred to. The inscription is badly cut
and of a later date.

(2) This name occurs in an inscription published by Gese-
nius (Mon. Pham. p. 181), and is, probably, a contraction for
noSojn, “gratia regni,” or “gratia reginoi" (sc. Astartes).
It is of very common occurrence in these inscriptions (vid.
infra, Inscr. 20, DO, 51, 53, &c.), and must not be confounded
(as has been sometimes done) with the names Hamilcar
('A^kKxr) and Himilco ('i/ziAsw) ; though there can be no
doubt that the word forms the first part of all the names,
Hamelcat, Hamelcar, Himilco, Hannibal, &c.

PLATE V.

No. 13. No. 14

^ff raVinr*

nil m pn ^ M imis

Mm p nvmm pn ,

*Qy ttj m

P 1QK/N

Dominffi Tanith faciei- Baal*1' et Domino Dominte Tanith faciei-Ball et Domino Baal-

Baal-Hamman : quod vovit Bad-Astareth, filius Hamman : quod vovit Abd-Asman, filius

Hanna.1-'

(1) In the first, line the connecting 1 is omitted.

(2) This Hanna may be either the son of the Magon of
Inscr. No. 4, or the sou of Bad-Melkart, of Inscr. No. 12.
This is one of the worst cut of these inscriptions, and the
letters are very carelessly formed ; so that, for instance, the
first b in the Inscription looks almost like the JT

This and the next inscription are badly cut, and late.

mp^mnj?

in

irj^yn in

Baal-Hammau: quod vovit Arisitl

Melkart, filii Bad-Astaretb, filii Bar

(I) Feminine of Aris, v. ante, Inscr. 6,
uectod with the Hebrew JIlthN.

l/" filia Abd-
1-Azer.

perhaps, con-

PLATE VI.

No. 16.

~i2 nj ion
a p mniyy
JP p bjPiH
OH£P Z33W1?

No. 17.

[njjfi!? jp-i1 2 3?

tnVi tyajs
inn by2b [)]
. p Jin na

-Hamman : [quod11*] vovit Bad-Astareth, filius Dominaa Tauith iaciei-Baal et Domino Baal-

Adan-Baal, filii Baal-Saphat® Bsrm.(8) Hamman : quod vovit Zivag,'1* filius. . .

(1) The relative 10N has been omitted here. (|) The name JV? is

(2) Iu the fifth Carthaginian Inscription published by
(iesenius (p. 177), we meet with Abd-Melkart 133IOT (Abd-
Melkait Sufes) ; in which case there is no reason to doubt
that the Abd-Melkart there commemorated did fill the well-
known office of Sufes or Judge in Carthage ; but, both here
and in the Inscr. 4ii, infra, only enters as part of the
compound name of a person, and does not designate an office.

(3) We can offer no explanation of these letters, which
may, perhaps, express the title of the preceding Sufes ; or,
the name of some town to which he belonged.

==

No. 19.

J3 run1? nm|>]
byib ty[n]

mu inn
[yi$%o rp jinn[s]

PLATE VII.

No. 20.

ion byib paVi

P N13 VTJ m

tyaan p roVon

Dominse Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamraan : quod vovit [A]risith,(1> filia Baal-
I[tan],

(1) This name occurs ante, Inscr. 18 and 15, and infra,
Inscr. 42. There is no doubt about the reading in this place,
though the first letter is lost.

et Domino Baal-Hamman : quod vovit Bada,(1)
filius Hamelcat,<2) filii Han-Baal.

(1) This name does not occur elsewhere in these inscrip¬
tions. It may be an abbreviated form of N"DV, for which,
see Inscr. 9, ante.

(2) For this name, see ante

PLATE VIII.

No. 22.

i tynjs run1? /mb
vh ion byib pa1?
/np^a-py n:

• • • ND p

No. 23.

JS Jlj[fl^
i>2b pa^[i bjp]
»ko pn[^]
. t p /np^aiay]
IfPpj^Dty p . . .

Dominse Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamman : quod vovit Abd-Melkart, films Ma,l;

• ■ . . [Dominse Tajnith faciei-[Baal et]
Domino Baal-Hamman : quod obtulit"1 2 3 [Abd-
M]elkart, filius Z® . . . filii Az-Mel [kart].®

(1) The rest of this name is lost. It may have been (1) This is a new word, for the usual TU; but its meau-

7VDND, Gesen. p. 152 ; or D^ND, Gesen. p. 187. ing is plain ; it is the same as the Hebrew N1M, “ offerre."

Cf. J7N!£?i2 2 Citron, xxiv. 6, 9 ; Marseilles Iuscr. 1. 3 ; and
Inscr. 90, infra.

(2) Owing to the broken state of the stone the rest of
this name is hopelessly lost.

(3) This is a new combination — but the name of the king

[Az-Baal = Eth-Ba&l] on the coins of Gebal — and
[Az-Malek] in 'a£.>* xoe, king of Tyre (Arrian, ii. 1 5),
are analogous to it: Q? is, in fact, the same as the Hebrew
ty — “ vis," “ robur."

No. 25.

as .nan1? /mb
ab n»bi bya
*na ion by

PLATE IX.

No. 26.

bjnas na/ib Jiaib
[» i]on byab p»bi
[my p] bynan ma v
■ ■ ■ 1D10N

Dominse Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamman : quod vovit .

Dominffi Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamman : quod vovit Han-Baal [filius 01 Abd- i
Asman .

(1) It is most likely that the third line ended with the
words *py p (ben Abd-), and that the full name of the
father of the dedicator was Abd-Asman (see ante, Inscr.
14. 24, &c.). The perpendicular stroke remaining in the
fifth line may be the top of the b of nbp, the second word
of the usual benedictory sentence.

No. 27.
n[jJ/ib /mb
pNbi bynjs
ion bynb
■ [n]VU

/n byan . .

Dominte Tanith a) faciei-Baal et Domino Batd-
Hamman : quod vovit . . th<3) -Baa], filia. . .

( 1) The 3 is omitted in this name.

(2) As the vower, in this case, is a woman, and as her
name ends with j-|, the whole name may have been
bya/ina (Amt-Badl), bya/iny Amt-Baal (v. infra,
Inscr. 38), or by am, Bath-Bual (v. infra, Inscr. 47). This
is one of the worst cut of the Inscriptions, and, except from
the analogy of other letters, many of these might have
been easily misinterpreted.

. No. 28.

[s njan1? naif1?]
[a1? byaj

[k*vt]j wn ion by
[o]Tay na na1?
mv p /npb

Dominffi Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamman : quod [vovit] Labat,01 filia Abd-[Me]l-
kart, filii Arem®. . . .

(1) This is a new name, perhaps connected with Hebrew
a^? “ cor,” or it may be a feminine form of pb [Genes, xxiv.
20.]

(2) It is not certain whether this word is entire, as given
above ; or whether the top of another letter, visible on the
stone, belongs to it or not : in either ease it would be a new
name, derived perhaps, from the Hebrew Dill.

PLATE X.

No. 29.
nun1? rui1?
rm1?! 'wans

Tanitb faciei-Baal et Domino

V, "

.

■

■

British Museum, hhi.xhtan ixs< kiptioxs Pi-.XI

PLATE XI.

No. 31.

aaa run!? rrn1?
n bio1? p»Vi
win -na wn p
np!>troy n d

M

No. 32.
run1? rai1?

N*71 !>Pll[>]
n *?va!> n
*vu wn p
[^]amD

Dominie Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal- Dominie Tanitli faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-

Hamrnan : quod vovit Arism,"* filius Abd-Mel- Hamrnan : quod vovit Mahar-B[aal](1).

kar[t]. .

(1) This name occurs, infra, Inscr. 75.

(1) There can be no doubt of the reading of this name,
which occurs again (infra, Inscr. 80. 47, &c.), though the two
last letters are in this instance lost. Mahar-Baal is a well-
known Punic name(Liv. 31, 12). In Greek it is written
either Ma.dpgcc>. (App. 7, 10), or Maapgae (Polyb. 3, 84).
We also find it in a slightly modified form, as Mippaiioc, a
General of the Aradians (Herod. 7, 98), and a Judge of the
Tyrians (Jos. e. Apion. 1, 21). It is a compound of the
Hebrew "7i!D and

(1) The 17 has been, accidentally, omitted at the end of

nm-

British Museum. Uikkmctaiv inscriptions'. I’i. XH

(1) This in
tor ; for which

PLATE XII.

No.

34.

No. 35.

N' TT3 VX

ais ran1? nan1?
[ya]1? ]ixbi
m3 va ian b
[i]a nnniyyna
n3 p ^yaini*

Quod vovit Aris."' Domintc Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-

Hamman : quod vovit Bad-Astareth,filius Allan-'1’
Baal, filii tier.'21

ription contains only the name of the dedica- (1) There is no doubt about the reading of this name, as

see ante, Inscr. 0, and infra, Inscr. 77. the a is clearly formed, though many other letters are care¬

lessly cut. It occurs only on this Inscription ; hut the first
portion, pN, in the sense of Stone, is met with on other
Punic monuments. Cf. Gesen. pp. 108, 110, & c. Aban-
Badl occurs here, we believe, for the first time, as the name
of n person : we feel inclined to connect it with 3N (father),
and to give it the sense of “ our Father Baal.”

(2) Owing to the fracture at the bottom of this tablet, we
cannot determine whether 13 (Ger) represents the whole
name, or a contraction. On Inscr. infra, 49, 56, and 61,
we meet with the name pDU (Ger-Sacau); and on Inscr.
infra, 55, 58, and 06, with JTUH£fln3 (Ger-Astareth), to
either of which it may, possibly, refer. It may be further
remarked, that Ger is not unfrequently found forming the
beginning of geographical names of places in northern Africa,
ns Garama, GararoanUe, Garaphi, Garas, Garbatai, Garra,
tier, a river in Mauretania, Girba iusula, Girgiris mons. &e.,
and that some connection with the Hebrew 13 (Ger) “ pere-
grinus " may perhaps be traced in it.

PLATE XIII.

No. 37.

[ty]:niy to wn
in p tyaaia p
mpte

No. 38.

[■pjajs] run1? mi1?
[3 urn p]n tya1? pm‘?’i
[n]a “pya/iDy n

. . quod vovit Azer-Ba[al,] filius Adan-

Baal, filii Bad-Melkart.

Dominse Tanith [faciei-Baal] et Domino Baal-
H[amman : quod] vovit(1) Amt- Baal, filia(2) . .

( 1 ) The feminine termination X is omitted here.

(3) Though the last letter of the third line of this In¬
scription is lost, we have no doubt about restoring it JP
(bath), and not p (ben), as Amt (female servant) precedes
it. The initial y is exceptional.

■

British museum, pikenician inscriptions, pi.xiv

PLATE XIV.

No. 40.

ion

[n]a rwby tu tt>N
‘j: p niyy^ya

No. 41.

[“71] tyais run1? run1?
[im]3 vh ion p»

■ ■ ■ n m natenn
■ • • B P 13

et Domino Baal-Hamman : quod vovit Aalsith, (1 1
filia Baal-Aser,® filii Nal<3)

Dominse Tanith faciei-Baal [et] Domino Baal-
Hamman : quod [vovit] Hat-Melcat,01 filia II...
. . . [Ma]gon,,2) filii M . . .

(1) In Gesen. Monuni. Phcen., p. 451, is an inscription,

which that scholar has transcribed TO t£>N (that is,

quod vovit Aalsith).

There can be no doubt that this is the same name as
occurs on the present inscription, and that it is connected, as
Gesenius has suggested, with the Hebrew roots or

XT}) — “ exultari.” We venture, however, to think that Gese¬
nius is in error when he rends TO, and that his

inscription ought to be transcribed rwby KIT ; the name
Aalsith being that of a female, and the N being attached to
the verb, as on Inscr. ante, 2, S, to denote the feminine
gender.

If this reasoning be correct, we must suppose that the N
of the verb has been accidentally omitted in the present in¬
scription, as in Inscr. 38, &c., and that the last word of the
third line must be completed IP (bath, “filia"), and not p
(ben, “filius”).

(2) The first stroke of the 1 V in ~\*Dy (Aser), is lost in the
preceding J? : the more usual form of this name is Azer
(TJ?). Seo ante, Inscr. 1, 30, 37, &c.

(3) The last name does not admit of completion, from the
imperfection of the stone, but the second letter resembles
the ^ more than any other letter.

(1) This form is the feminine of (TOl?Dn) Hameleat,
for which, see ante, Inscr. 11, Note 8.

(2) It is most probable that the first syllable of this name
has been, originally, as here supplied.

PLATE XV.

No. 43.

Oiot>] • •

2v tu wn io[n]
i3Dn pmn
np^anay p
n

No. 44.

byup nan1? nan^

.... Ba£l efc Domino [Baal]-Hamnmii : Dominie Tamth ftciei-Baal

quod vovit Abd-Asman, scriba,(1) filius Abd-Mel-
kart.

(1 1 For this title, see Gesen. p. 1H8, where the same
office is mentioned. We may remark that there the “scriba"
is named “ Gad-Astareth, filius Abd-Melkart," and that it
is, therefore, possible that the Abd-Asman of the present
inscription may belong to the same family. Geacnius points
out the probable connection between "13D of the .Tews and
Phcenicians and the Tfa/ifiaTurra* of the Persians

(Herod, iii. 128). Cf. also, for the rank the Scribe held
among the Jews, 2 Sam. xvii. 20; 2 Kings xii. 11 ; xix. 2.

PLATE XVII.

No. 49.

aptoaa a

PDU p n
l/va^a p
a^p yowa
sna

No. 50.

b pa1?! *?ya:i3 /ljn1? a-6
nabon aa: wn ion ^va
ns p xorr p

Dominaj*1* Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-

. Hanunan : quod vovit Hamelcat, filius Hanna,

vovit Bad - Melkart, filius Ger - Sacan,(l) filii Badi (2'

Malek-Itan. TJbi audiverit ejus vocem, ei
benedicat.®

(X) The last stroke to the left of the D in this name is (1) The /I in /Oa has been omitted on this stone,

lost, owing to a flaw in the stone. It is, however, certain, (2) This is a new name. Cf. ilHS and irPlS.

from Inscr. 61, infra, that the Hebrew transcript in this
place is correct It is a new name.

(2) The 3 has been omitted in the word N3aa, by some
accident, but space has beon left on the stone for it.

PLATE XVIII.

No. 52.

byzusi nanb n:n^
fflori byzb payi

No. 53.

bynp rpi[^>]

ion tya?

p no^orr am
yia p mpbiDin
m[nty]

Dominie Tanitli faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamrnan : .

Dominie Tanitlj faoiei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Harnman: quod vovit Hamelcat, filius Bad-
Melkart, filii Bad-A[st]aretli.

No. 54.
b mi1?
[^Jypjs run

Dominie Tanitk faciei-Baa[l.] .

PLATE XX.

No. 57.

[in]n pa^i]
p rp^an vu wn
‘pan p m/myn
bymna p .ns

No. 58.

n1?! by[y] .

ny m: .

in in mflBpj p 'jjp
aa^xn yaws /np^a

et Domino Baal-Hamman : quod vovit Hamelcat,
filius Bad-Astareth, filii Hamelcat, filii Mahar-
Baal.

[Dominm Tanitb faciei- B]aal et Domino [Baal-
Hamman : quod] vovit Azer-Baal, filius Ger-As-
tareth, filii Bad-Melkart. Ubi audiverit ejus
vocem ei benedicat.

- -

British Museum, hkknktan Inscriptions. I'i. XXH

PLATE XXII.

No. 61.

. n

y p mp^Diay
DU p pawn
P

No. 62.

‘pyaja nan1? rp-ib
n pn ^yab paVi
a ptoNiay n: at
romay ]

vovit Abd-Melkart, filius Abd-

Dominat Tauith facici-Baal et Domino Baal-
liamman : quod vovit Abd-Asman, filius Abd-

Asman, filii Grer-Sacan.0'

Tauith.0'

(I) This name occurs, ante, Inscr. 49, 50.

(1) This name is not found elsewhere on these Inscrip¬
tions : but it occurs on a monument, formerly in the Military
and Naval Museum, at Scotland Yard, but now in the British
Museum. This monument has been published by Geseuius,
p. 118, and is of considerable value, as it exhibits one of
the few bilingual inscriptions which have been discovered.
The name Abd-Tanitli is there rondered ’AfTEjUiSiifos.

PLATE XXIII.

No. 64.

‘ajpas nanb nan1?
l[»]n bya1? pa^i
[n]nnwr[a -na>x

No. 65.

px^i ‘ayaas na-ib]

[nls’aon Tra »x ion [‘ays1?]
xanbya p ro’aon p

Dominic Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
H[amman]: quod [vovit Ba]d-Astare[th] 01 .

. [Dominas] Tanith faciei-Baal, et

Domino [ Baal]-Hamman ■. quod01 vovit Harnel-
c[at], filius Hamelcat,'21 filii Baal-Hanna.

(I) Though the first and last letters are wanting, there is
little doubt that this name must be completed as above. The
only other name which could be substituted here (viz. Ger-
Astareth), if the second letter be read 1 (r) instead of 1
(d). is of much less frequent occurrence.

(1) The form of the !£’ in 10X is peculiar.

(2) The D in Jp'ann has only one stroke.

No. 66.

• ib P^W •
. . . na wx
. . . tttjna p •
rpon .
y p ‘ayiaaix .
dkgi am bv ■ ■

et Domino Ba[al-Hamman] :
filius Ger-As[taretli] 01 . .

Adan-Baal, filius A . . •

cipis. (l1 Andias

quod vovit. .

. satelles1 (2) 3 4
. [B]aal,®

prin-

(1) There is little doubt that this name must be restored
as above ; the only other combination of the first syllable
(Ger) on these Inscriptions is Ger-Sacan. See Inscr. mile,
49, BO, 61. Eor Ger-Astareth, see Inscr. ante, 55 and 58.

(2) rniO; in Hebrew, to slaughter or kill animals; whence
the noun 1"QI0, Mactator, Coquus (1 Sam. ix. 23, 24), Car-
nifex, Satelles Kegius (Gen. xxxvii. 36, &c.)

(3) From the defective state of the stoue, which is broken
off at both ends, it is not possible to restore with certainty
the lost name.

(4) Cf. Gesenius, Mon. Phcen. p. 179.

British Museum. Phoenician inscriptions. Pl.xXV.

N°71.

N?72.

PLATE XXVI.

No. 73.

*?jd is nun1? nan1?
pn byzb n»bi
nay ia mpbona m3
Dwa na'pan p mpba
Nanan Nbp y

Dominie Tanith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hannnau: quod vovit Bad-Melkart, filius Abd-
Melkart, filii Hamelcat. Ubi audiverit ejus
vocem, ei benedicat.'11

(1 ) The letter 1 (d) inserted before the lust word of the
benedictory formula is a manifest error of the engraver of
the stone, for n (t).

■

No. 74.

[j>]339 ron1? /mb
ion bj?3b pybi b
bj?3[3]n “na [wr]
y p [by]33iR i[3]
133

Dominfc Tanitla faciei-Baal et Domino01 Baal-
Hamman : quod vovit Ha[n-]Baal,l2) filius Adan-
B[aal], filii Acbar.<3)

Domin;
Hamm an
Astareth,

( 1 ) pj?. The more usual form of this word is ]1R.

(-2) The second letter in this name is entirely lost, by an
injury of the stone ; but there seems no reason to doubt
that it has been completed correctly, as above.

(3) This name occurs ante, Inscr. 71, infra, Inscr. 77, 78.

(1) For

(2) The
the stone.

PLATE XXVII.

No. 75.

Vi bjms Ji3/ib nm1?

in m ion by3b pR
13 /)1/U£»jn3 p D!tf1R
13 Rbp JtDttO 1D10R13

ie Tanitb faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
: quod vovit Arism,0) filius Bad-
filii Bad-Asman. Ubi audiverit ejus
benedicat.(2)

this name, see ante, Inscr. 31.
two last letters of this word (R3) are lost upon

British Museum, phienician inscriptions, pi.. xxvhi.

PLATE XXVIII.

No. 77.

No. 7S.

ObJ/mb

233 ronb nfai1?]

233 jij

n tyab iin^i

Nbi

WIN 113 WN id

‘jyab it

yi2i> 12 123y 12

3 WN ion

Nbp y . . . .

N3n n

may [l]a

Dominse [Ta]nith faciei-Baal et Domino Baal
Hamman : quod vovit Hanna, filius Acbar.

[Domimo] Tanith faciei-Ba[al] et Domino
Baal-Hamman : quod vovit Aris, filius Acbar, filii
Abdfi® .... ejus vocem.

(l) The

jsual form of this

N12y (Abda).

PLATE XXIX.

No. 80.

i Vyzns nunb n[an^]
vh inn 'pya'? [pa1?]
/np^omy n[-ia]
ny p mpbona i[n]
Nbp yaws m . . .

No. 81.

. [bjyajs nafn1? /mV
. |-n]a ttt« pn b . •
• ■ jon^yn m • •
. . /n/myin p . .

No. 82.

mni> /ml?

V byo JOE)

No. S3.

^yaas nan1? nan1?
pn bya1? paV

pWSTay NtM li’N
x1?? now nbs p

Domintc Tanitli faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamman : quod vovit Abd-Melkart, filius Bad-
Melkart, filii Ab . . rt.0) II bi audiverit ejus

vocem .

(1) It is not possible to say, owing to tbe fractured state
uf the stone, how many letters have been lost here ; but it
is likely that the name was Abd-Melkart.

[Domintc Tajnitli faciei-Baal [et Domino

Baa]l-Hamman : quod vovit .

filia 1 Banl-Hanna, filii Bad-Astareth.

(I) This stone has suffered so much injury, having been
split off both at the beginning and end, that it is not pos¬
sible to restore the name of the dedicator. The word i"Q
(bath) however, following, shows that she must have been a

Dominte Tanitli, faciei'^-Baal et

(l) The addition of N in JOE) may be compared with
-ay,— KT9JJ,— &c.

Dominse Tanitli faciei-Baal et Domino Baal-
Hamman : quod extulit(1) Abd-Asman, filius
Tsilili. ■ Audias(3) ejus vocem.

(1) See ante, luscr. 28, for this word.

1 2) This is a new name : cf. PlA’, prospere gessit.

(8) NOW for the more usual yOW. Cf. ND1M ante,

PLATE XXX.

No. 84.

. 31 2? paVi ty[a] .
.... uvtya .
- . . . DK p •

No. 85.

[j]s nant1? J

• [in]n fyu1? p[x 1
Nia

[Ba]ul et Domino Ba[Sl]
Baal-Itan .

filii® As(S) ....

Dominic Tanith l'aciei-[Baal et] Domino Baal-
H[amman]: . Bada."1

(1) This has been translated “filii" instead of “ Alius," ( | ) This name occurs, ante, Inser. 20.

because the length of inscription, of which a very small

portion has been preserved, leads to the supposition that the
name preserved is that of the grandfather rather than that of
the father of the dedicator.

(2) It is not possible to restore this name.

PLATE XXXI.

No. 87.

No. 88.

n inn pioi

jn/iwjna tp v
“pyajn p

et Domino Baal-Hamman : quod vovit Bad-As-
tareth, filius Han-Baal.

(I) It is remarkable that this stone, which is nearly per¬
fect, contains this one letter only; and it is clear from its
state of preservation, that it never lias contained any other.
Is this letter intended as the initial of the name of the
Goddess Tnnith ?

PLATE XXXII.

No. 90.

. mdd cm nnMCDn nys 1

mm by3b nlMi Dunsb m . . . -2

m mtn byab .rn3.n1 Dinob my • • 3

b cmh pi Dinsb Dtyn my pi mix • • 4

snob myn pi mis ox Dbbs b’M ana . . 5

Dio insb p> bs Njpo bp n . o
pnM by II at *jdd yx2 '

. . i map insb p DbM nn Day' c . 8
. . . . iac nat *nyi na nat byl ncpp . 9

. byi nmoa nat byi sbn by 10

. nn t D3i nc bs 'm .11

No. oo.

1 • Tempore oblationum : quod constitu

2. . pellis sacerdotibus et [partes sect® ?] domino sa-
crificii . .

3. . . pellis sacerdotibus et [partes sect® ?] domino sa-

crificii . .

4. . . [si] sacrificium prsescriptum : pellis caprarum

erit sacerdotibus ; sacrificium vero erit . .

5. . [vel] ex hinnulco [capra] ; holocaustis [scil.] et si
[sint] sacrificia necessaria : pellis erit sacerdotibus

().... pecora macra : — non erit sacerdotibus ex eis.
7. . pro alitibus argenti duo zar, pro singulis [scil.].

S. quod offeret coram Deis ; sacerdoti erunt prosecta

et . .

. pro sacris [primitiisP] et pro. sacrificio alimen-
torum et pro sacrificio olci

10. . pro adipe [lacte?] et pro sacrificio [incruento]

et pro . .

11. . . [quod attinet ad sacrificium] peregrini qui non

sit ex ea regione : det .

The above rendering of this Inscription must be considered
as simply tentative, it being impossible, in some coses, to pro¬
pose a satisfactory meaning to its words ; since, although there
are eleven lines of writing, and the individual characters are
more elegantly engraved than those of any other Inscription
in this collcctiou ; the commencement of the first line alone
is preserved, while the sixth and seventh lines are the only
ones which appear to he complete at the endings, all the
others wanting both their beginnings and terminations.

This Inscription, as will be seen at the first glance, bears
a striking analogy with the celebrated one found at Mar¬
seilles in 1845, in which nearly all its words occur, and, some¬
times, In the same connection, with evidently the same sense.
Yet the interpretation of the Marseilles Inscription, even
admitting that it has been accurately accomplished by any of
the different scholars who have studied it, does not, of itself,
suffice for that of the Inscription before us. There are,
indeed, many and important differences between the two
Inscriptions, as well in the style of the engraving of the
individual words, us in the general framing of their texts.

Whether the Marseilles Inscription be the original decree
issued for the regulation of the taxes connected with the
sacrifices — or how far it and the one before us may have been
severally adapted from one fundamental decree for the special
use of the respective places in which they were found, must,
owing to the scantiness of the materials which have hitherto
been discovered, remain, for tho present, undetermined.
Judging from the character of the writing, we have little
doubt that the Marseilles Inscription is entitled to the priority

As the Marseilles Inscription has been so frequently
published, it did not seem necessary to reproduce, in all cases,
the obvious parallel passages, to which we alludo from time
to time, or to quote at full length the opinions of the different
Savans whose readings we have occasionally adopted.

Line 1. — [Compare Mars. Inscr., Line 1, 2.] — nnMCDIP
Plural form, traces of which are to be found also in Mars.
Inscr , L. 1. — MN3 — to fix. erect, constitute; in Hebrew,
(obsol.), only in the sense to weave, braid ; Arab.

The end of this line was probably filled with the name or
names of the Sufetcs under whose auspices these taxes were
fixed, as in Mars. Inscr. — CM. id quod — as iu the foregoing
tablets. —

2.— [Mars. Inscr., L. 8, 4. — nyiX DM bbl t)bM3]
. . yn pi]— man from rro = Arab. to

break, cut; Cf. JT)“Q, “cibus.” (Lam, iv. I ; Psalm lxix. 22.)

8. — [Mars. Inscr., L. 5, G. —

... n pi - nyimi bbi b’M3 dm - bny3i.]

The M at the end may be completed : nDP CM — Mars.
Inscr., L. 15.

4 — [Mars. Inscr., L. 7. DM bbs H’D DM b3'3 ] — CM
= nfM (Numb. vi. 5.)

5. — [Mars. Inscr., L. 0, 10. — 2 DM MTQ DM PDM3 ]
ms = ? epC ; cf. Prov. xvi. 27 : — a suggestion, which
further discoveries may corroborate. — obbs. Plur. with re¬
ference to the preceding animals.

(1.— [Mars. Inscr. L. 15. — DP CM rOT bDD] — bp.
Neither the most received translation of the corresponding
line iu the Mars. Inscr. “one poor in cattle" — rejected
by Munk, on the ground that one may be poor iu cattle or
birds, and yet able to purchase them ; nor the translation
suggested by himself, “ Le maigre du be tail,” are quite
satisfactory, although the latter has more in its favour. —
DID = DHM = DIPO. i. c. for all those mentioned.

7.— [Mars. Inscr. L. 11 (7, 9).— 1 p.lM P13SD] — j‘S =
Y’S “wing”— “winged animal.” Cf. Gen. vu. 14, bl
PISS bD, — It. I-Iebr. •* foreign," also “ profane "—as op¬

posed to “ sacred " — either of which significations may refer
to the word, “ Shekel," found in Mars. Inscr., L. 7, but omitted
here, as in Mars. Inscr., L. 9 and 1 1. [PI nebe ym *|D3].
We have, however, preferred rendering the word simply
“Zar-."

8, — [Mars. Inscr., L. 18 — M JiyiS PDD] DOy- to lift
up, carry, dole out, present. Cf. Ps. lxviii. 20 ; DID we un¬
hesitatingly read for jPIS (Cf. Mars. Inscr. L. 13), rejecting
the two meanings, “ daughter ” or “ temple,” which would
suggest themselves at first sight — [JP^S’] 1 JHPSp. These
two words occur three times together in the Marseilles Inscrip¬
tion, viz, L. 4, 10, and 13. Px’p appears to b^ akin to PO
— to cut off — while nbs is tho Hebrew, to roast. Munk,
who has left both words untranslated, has suggested
“ prosecta ” and “ assata.’ ’

9. — [Mars. Inscr. L. 12.— jPDPp by PSJt]. For the
corresponding conjunction DM of the Marseilles Inscription.
by has been substituted here throughout the line.

10— [Mars. Inscr., L. 14. — 1 3bn byi *?t?3]. The
corresponding words in the Marseilles Inscription —
mtb dpm cm ipdt Pd byi — have been contracted hero
into rat byi. — nrua in the Mosaic Law, chiefly for un¬
bloody sacrifices ns opposed to IPDt , — vegetable food and
drink offerings.

1 1 . — i Mars. Inscr., L. 18. — CM jPMCabl] “With respect
to the sacrifice of a man who is not a native.” Cf. Munk,
Mars. Inscr. — [CM jPDJPDn ’3b 1] JP31— “he shall give
according to the written decree which. ..." This line pre¬
sents no new features whatever; the first CM may be either
C'M “mau,“ or PCM “oue who;" the second, however, is
plainly. PCM ; we must, however, wait for further discoveries
to complete this reference, as well as to fill up the many other
gaps which our Inscription bus failed to fill up in the pro¬
vince of Phoenician antiquities profane and sacred.

I

■

.

-

• •

The following List contains the names which occur in these Inscriptions, with the number of the
Inscriptions in which they are found. Those names, which are given only doubtfully in the
Transcripts, have been omitted : —

Aalsith . .

AbaU'Baul .
Abda . . .
Abdd . . .
Abd-Asman .
Abd-Melkart .
Abd-Tanith .
Aberrath . .

40.

35.

9,45.

78.

14, 24, 39, 43, 59, Cl, 02, 83.

3, 15, 81, 22, 28, 31,43, 51,00,01, 73, 80.

79.

Acbar . . . 71, 74,77, 78.
Adan-Baal . 10, 37, 00, 74.

Adb. . . . 1.

Am-Astaretb . 8.

Aint-Mclkai't . 2.

Axem ... 28.

Aris ... 6, 34, 78.
Arisrn ... 31, 75.

Arisith . . . 13, 15, 19, 42.
Asinan-Halats 72.
Asman-Itan . 0.
Asman-Sbainar 5.
Astareth-Itan 5.

Azer-Baal .
Az-Melkart
Ba&l-Aser .
Baal-Azer .

1, 30, 37, 61, 58.
23.

15.

Baal-Halats .
BaM-Hanna .
Baal-Itan . .
Baal-Malak .
BaH-Malek .
Baal-Sapbat .
Baill-Sbelek .
Bada . . .
Bad-Asman .

80.

30, 33, 59, 05, 81.
10, 19, 00, 84.

30, 61, 55.
20, 85.

40, 75.

Bad-Astaruth .
Bad-A stare th

5, 13, 15, 10, 21, 35, 53, 57, 59, 04, 75, 81,

Badorn . . .

Bad-Melkart .

Bath-Baal . 47.

Brsm ... 10.
Cabdith . . 9.
Gadnaam . . 42.

Ger. ... 35.
Ger-l^taretli. 55, 58, 00.
Ger-Sacaa . 49, 50, 01.
Halats-Bail . 18.
Haiuelcat .

Hamelkart
Han . .

Hanna . .

10, 12, 18, 24, 30, 33, 37, 39, 48, 4
58, 04, 07, 69, 73, 80, 80.

11, 20, 50, 53, £

Hau-Baal
Hat-Melcat
Ican-Salem
I tan- Baal .

Labat . .

Magon . .

Mabur-Baal
Malek-ltan
Melkart-Halats 30.
Meten-Baal 50, 03.
Nabag

3, 4, 0, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21,
79, 89.

11, 20, 20, 30, 74, 87.

4, 12, 41, 42, 09.

32, 30, 47, 57, 08, 89.
49, 08.

Nal .
Padi

Sapbat

Xsilib

40.